Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Glenn Tyrone Green entered Joel Ingwerson’s residence without invitation and threw liquid bleach in his face, accusing him of being with his wife. Mr. Green also struck Mr. Ingwerson with a BB gun and threatened him. Mr. Ingwerson experienced severe pain, burning sensations, and chemical irritation, leading him to seek medical attention. Mr. Green was charged with one count of unlawful contact and two counts of aggravated assault and battery with a deadly weapon, one related to the bleach and one to the BB gun. The State later dismissed the BB gun charge and amended the Information to include misdemeanor simple battery.Mr. Green pled guilty to aggravated assault and battery with a deadly weapon (bleach) under a plea agreement, which included a six-year sentencing cap. The district court accepted his plea after confirming a factual basis for the charge. Mr. Green later violated the plea agreement by not cooperating with the preparation of his Presentence Investigation Report (PSI), leading to his arrest and the State invoking the "cold plea" provision. The district court sentenced him to six to eight years in prison.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the district court committed plain error by accepting Mr. Green’s guilty plea without a sufficient factual basis that bleach is a deadly weapon. The court concluded that the district court did not err, as there was a sufficient factual basis to determine that bleach, in the manner used by Mr. Green, was reasonably capable of producing serious bodily injury. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the bleach constituted a deadly weapon under the circumstances of the case. View "Green v. State" on Justia Law

Cameron Curtis Hagen was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for a cracked windshield in Casper, Wyoming. During a search prompted by a canine alert, officers found controlled substances and a pistol. Hagen was charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana, misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He initially pled not guilty but later entered no contest pleas to the drug and firearm charges as part of a plea agreement, with the State recommending concurrent sentences.The District Court of Converse County accepted Hagen's no contest pleas and ordered a Presentence Investigation Report (PSI). At sentencing, Hagen objected to details in the PSI's criminal history section, arguing they were improperly sourced from prior PSIs and police reports, contrary to the Wyoming Criminal History Record Act. The district court took his objections under advisement but did not strike the contested details, stating it would not consider them in determining his sentence. Hagen was sentenced to concurrent terms of six months and one to three years, consistent with the plea agreement.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the district court abused its discretion by not excising the contested details from the PSI. The court found that the Criminal Record Act did not prohibit the inclusion of information from prior PSIs or police reports in a PSI. The court also noted that Hagen did not dispute the accuracy of the information, only its source. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion, as it explicitly stated it would not consider the contested information in sentencing. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Hagen v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

A mother and father, who married in December 2021 and separated a year later, have two children (twins). The father also has three children from a previous marriage. After their separation, the mother filed for divorce, and the case went to trial to resolve issues of custody, child support, and property division. The district court granted the divorce, determined custody, ordered the father to pay child support, and divided the property.The district court awarded the parents alternating-week custody of the twins, differing from the holiday schedule for the father's children from his previous marriage. The court also granted the mother final decision-making authority regarding the twins. The father was ordered to pay child support based on the mother's income, which the court calculated using her tax returns and other financial documents. The court also divided the equity in the marital home, using an appraised value from October 2023 and the mortgage obligation from December 2022.The father appealed to the Supreme Court of Wyoming, contesting the holiday visitation schedule, the mother's final decision-making authority, the calculation of the mother's income for child support, and the division of the home equity. The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the district court's decisions for abuse of discretion.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court's decisions. It found that the holiday visitation schedule, while different from the father's schedule with his other children, was not an abuse of discretion. The court also upheld the decision to grant the mother final decision-making authority, noting that the district court adequately explained its reasoning. The calculation of the mother's income for child support was supported by sufficient evidence, and the division of the home equity was reasonable given the evidence presented. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court's decisions were within the bounds of reason and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. View "Amadio v. Amadio" on Justia Law

Edward Eugene Robertson pled guilty to second-degree murder after admitting to shooting his wife, Dana Robertson, because he was angry about her alleged infidelity. Before sentencing, he filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the district court denied. Robertson argued that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion.The District Court of Natrona County initially charged Robertson with first-degree murder. After a competency evaluation and a period of restoration at the Wyoming State Hospital, he was found competent to proceed. Robertson entered a plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness (NGMI), but later requested a change of plea to guilty for second-degree murder. The court accepted his guilty plea after ensuring it was made knowingly and voluntarily.Robertson filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea less than a month later, citing a change of mind and dissatisfaction with his representation. The district court held a hearing and denied the motion, finding no fair and just reason for withdrawal under W.R.Cr.P. 32(d). The court noted that Robertson had close assistance of counsel, his plea was knowing and voluntary, and his reasons for withdrawal were belated misgivings.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court applied the Frame factors to determine whether a fair and just reason existed for withdrawal. It found that Robertson did not assert his innocence credibly, had close assistance of counsel, and entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Robertson's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "Robertson v. State" on Justia Law

A jury found Matthew Scott Iverson guilty of possessing and reproducing child pornography. The case arose when a housecleaner discovered a USB drive containing child pornography while preparing a rental property. The police investigation linked the USB drive and other electronic devices containing child pornography to Mr. Iverson. He was charged with five counts of sexual exploitation of children, including knowingly reproducing child pornography.The District Court of Laramie County instructed the jury on the elements of the crime but failed to include the mens rea element of "knowingly" reproducing child pornography. Mr. Iverson did not object to the jury instructions at trial. The jury found him guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to eight to ten years in prison for reproducing child pornography and five to ten years for each possession charge, with all sentences running concurrently.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. The court acknowledged that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on the mens rea element. However, the court found that this error did not materially prejudice Mr. Iverson. The evidence presented at trial, including digital forensics and Mr. Iverson's own statements, overwhelmingly demonstrated that he knowingly reproduced child pornography. The court concluded that there was no reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different verdict if properly instructed. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Iverson v. State" on Justia Law

Richard Joey Garcia was convicted of possession with intent to deliver fentanyl. He appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motions to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his camper and in summarily denying his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.The District Court of Fremont County denied Mr. Garcia’s motions to suppress, finding that the search warrant covered the camper and that the affidavit supporting the warrant did not contain material misrepresentations or omissions. The court also denied his motion for a new trial, which was based on potentially exculpatory evidence from Ms. Apadaca’s cell phone, without holding a hearing.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the search of the camper was within the scope of the warrant. The court found that the warrant and the supporting affidavit, when read together, clearly included the camper as a target of the search. The court also upheld the district court’s finding that there were no intentional or reckless misrepresentations or omissions in the affidavit that would have misled the issuing judge.Regarding the motion for a new trial, the Wyoming Supreme Court found that any error in the district court’s failure to hold a hearing was harmless. The court noted that Mr. Garcia’s motion did not meet the criteria for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, as it did not allege that the evidence had come to his knowledge since the trial, was not due to a lack of due diligence, was material enough to produce a different verdict, or was not merely cumulative or for impeachment purposes.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s rulings, upholding Mr. Garcia’s conviction and sentence. View "Garcia v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Samuel Nania was convicted by a jury of third-degree sexual assault. He appealed, arguing that the district court erred by excluding evidence of his polygraph examination during the trial. Nania contended that the district court should have analyzed the reliability of the polygraph examination before excluding it.The district court of Natrona County held a hearing on the State's motion in limine to exclude the polygraph evidence. The court granted the State's motion, ruling that polygraph testimony is inadmissible in Wyoming without a stipulation by the parties. Nania did not make a formal offer of proof regarding the polygraph results or the qualifications of the examiner, nor did he request a Daubert hearing to establish the reliability of the polygraph evidence.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the district court's decision. The court noted that Nania failed to provide a sufficient record to review the polygraph results or the qualifications of the examiner. The court also emphasized that Wyoming precedent requires a stipulation for the admissibility of polygraph evidence and that Nania did not meet this requirement. Additionally, the court found that even if the district court had erred, Nania did not demonstrate that the exclusion of the polygraph evidence prejudiced the outcome of the trial. The court concluded that there was no reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to Nania had the polygraph evidence been admitted, given the substantial evidence against him, including his own admissions and witness testimonies.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the exclusion of the polygraph evidence was not an abuse of discretion and did not result in prejudicial error. View "Nania v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Chesapeake Exploration, LLC (Chesapeake) and Morton Production Company, LLC (Morton) entered into a joint operating agreement for oil and gas development in Converse County, Wyoming. Morton sued Chesapeake for breach of contract, violation of the Wyoming Royalty Payment Act (WRPA), and conversion after Chesapeake adjusted Morton’s ownership interest and withheld production proceeds. Chesapeake counterclaimed for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Morton.Chesapeake appealed, challenging the district court’s summary judgment on Morton’s breach of contract claim, the supplemental decision on Chesapeake’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses, and the determination that Chesapeake violated the WRPA. The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision. It held that Chesapeake breached the contract by adjusting Morton’s ownership interest and billing for costs beyond the twenty-four-month limitation period specified in the 1985 COPAS Form, which was incorporated into the joint operating agreement. The court found the language in the COPAS Form unambiguous and declined to consider extrinsic evidence. The court also upheld the district court’s use of Rule 60(a) to correct a clerical error in its original order and found that Chesapeake’s counterclaims were properly dismissed as they were rendered moot by the summary judgment on Morton’s claims. Additionally, the court ruled that Chesapeake violated the WRPA by withholding production proceeds without placing the disputed funds in escrow, as required by the statute. View "Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, v. Morton Production Company, LLC" on Justia Law

The State of Wyoming filed a petition against MF (Mother) and JF (Father) on June 22, 2020, alleging neglect of their minor children, JF and TF. Following a shelter care hearing, the juvenile court removed the children from the home and placed them in foster care. After a disposition hearing, the children remained in the custody of the Department of Family Services (the Department), with a permanency plan of family reunification. On January 19, 2024, after an evidentiary permanency hearing, the juvenile court changed the permanency plan to adoption.The juvenile court found that the Department had made reasonable efforts to reunify the family, but these efforts were unsuccessful. The court noted that Mother had made some progress but ultimately failed to consistently address the children's needs and safety concerns. The court also found that the children's best interests were served by changing the permanency plan to adoption, given their progress in foster care and the lack of stability and safety in Mother's care.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the juvenile court's decision. The court held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in changing the permanency plan to adoption, as the Department had made reasonable efforts at reunification, which were unsuccessful. The court also found that the juvenile court's decision to cease reunification efforts with Mother was supported by Wyoming law, which allows for discontinuation of such efforts when they are inconsistent with the permanency plan.Additionally, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that Mother's due process rights were not violated by the denial of a continuance of the permanency hearing or by the juvenile court's evidentiary rulings. The court found that Mother had adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, and the juvenile court's decisions were within the bounds of reason. The court also declined to adopt Mother's request for a change in procedures to require compliance with the Wyoming Rules of Evidence in evidentiary permanency hearings. View "In the Interest of: JF v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Anthony Torres was convicted by a jury of twelve counts of sexual abuse of a minor. He appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the State to amend its Information to add three additional charges of sexual abuse ten days before trial and by admitting three excerpts of a videotaped forensic interview of one of the minors into evidence.The District Court of Sweetwater County initially charged Torres with ten counts of sexual abuse involving his stepson, GT. Later, the State added a charge involving another minor, LT. Shortly before trial, the State moved to amend the Information to include three more charges based on new disclosures by LT. The district court granted the motion and continued the trial to a later date, which Torres' counsel agreed to. Torres was ultimately tried on fourteen counts and convicted on twelve.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to amend the Information. The court noted that the trial was continued to a date agreed upon by Torres' counsel, providing sufficient time to prepare a defense. The court also found that the amendments did not change Torres' defense strategy, which was to argue that the minors were influenced to fabricate their stories.Regarding the admission of the videotaped forensic interview excerpts, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The excerpts were admitted as prior consistent statements under Wyoming Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) to rebut charges of recent fabrication or improper influence. The court found that the statements were sufficiently consistent with the minors' trial testimony and that their admission was not unduly prejudicial.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decisions, upholding Torres' convictions. View "Torres v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law